Email

The conflict between Pakistan’s executive orders and judicial authorities dates back to the era of Liaquat Ali Khan when the country was in its teething years. Throughout the course of Pakistan’s history the judiciary has played an integral role in the development of country, however, the public opinion remains that the judiciary of Pakistan is more inclined towards the military command and has favoured it often.

The time line provides a perspective of the political events that shaped the history of Pakistan and gave rise to various conflicting moments.

October 1954:
The constituent assembly made some amendments in the constitution which resulted in revocation of Malik Ghulam Muhammad’s power as a governor general – rights which had previously empowered him to dismiss Khawaja Nazimuddin’s government.

1955:
Following the decision made by the constituent assembly Ghulam Muhammad dissolved it, a move which was contested by Maulvi Tamiz-ud-din, the president of constituent assembly, in Sindh High Court.

Sindh Court’s verdict was in Maulvi Tamiz-ud-din’s favour however Supreme Court of Pakistan reversed the decision. This verdict was announced by Justice Munir.

October 1958:
Iskander Mirza, with the assistance of his commander-in-chief Muhammad Ayub Khan, suspended 1956’s constitution and declared the fist martial law in Pakistan – which lasted till 1962. This step involved dissolution of provincial and national assemblies and termination of various ministers.
For further details click here

The coup and martial law were unconstitutional moves, however were permitted by Justice Munir. His actions played an active role in establishing the famous ‘doctrine of necessity’ – a term which signifies extra-legal actions undertaken by the significant state actors in order to restore law and order in the country.

April 1973:
Bhutto formulated 1973’s constitution which was drafted unanimously by the ruling and opposing parties of the country.
For further details click here

August 1973:
According to the constitution of 1973, the power of decision making was at prime minister’s discretion and president only served as the figure head. Following this article, Bhutto was sworn in as the prime minister of Pakistan, on August 14, 1973.

September 1976:
Various amendments were introduced to the original constitution of 1973 by Bhutto, however the one which instigated uproar from the judicial command of the country entailed the curtailing of authority and jurisdiction of the judiciary.
For further details click here

January 1977:
A strong formation of all the opposing political parties, under the umbrella of Pakistan National Alliance (PNA), led Bhutto to call for early elections.
For further details click here

March 1977:
Elections were held in March and PPP won by a heavy majority, however PNA refused to accept the results and accused PPP of rigging the elections.

The political situation resulted in a strong movement against Bhutto where masses poured out onto the streets and many political leaders were arrested for their rebellion.
For further details click here

July 1977:
On July 5, 1977, the chief of army staff general Zia-ul-Haq, declared the third martial law in Pakistan and suspended the constitution.
For further details click here

November 1977:
Nusrat Bhutto filed a petition in the Supreme Court of Pakistan against the martial law imposed by Zia-ul-Haq, however the court validated the imposition under the ‘Doctrine of necessity’.
For further details click here

Bhutto’s case remains one of the most intriguing and controversial political case in the history of Pakistan.

A bench of seven judges was constituted in order to decide the proceeding of ZAB’s case. Three judges acquitted him whereas four judges declared him responsible for ordering extrajudicial murders. However, when Bhutto filed a petition to review his case, all the seven judges rejected it out rightly.
For further details click here

1980:
Zia issued the infamous provisional constitutional order of 1980 which granted exclusion of all martial law actions from the jurisdiction of courts. However, Quetta High court declared that the issuance of aforementioned stipulation and order go beyond the parameters of martial law regime.

1981:
After this ruling, General Zia issued PCO of 1981 which required all the judges to take new oaths validating that they will work in concurrence with the order. As a result of this 16 judges were fired and three refused to take oath but the rest succumbed under the pressure.
For further details click here

February 1985:
General Zia-ul-Haq became the president and Muhammad Khan Junejo was elected as the prime minister of Pakistan.

November 1985:
The eighth amendment was introduced to 1973’s constitution, which affected 19 clauses of the entire constitution. The constitution gave sufficient power to the president of Pakistan including the authority to dissolve the national assembly, specified as Article 58(2) b.
For further details click here

According to the newly added clause, all the decisions pertaining to the governance and administration of the country were to be made in consensus with the president.

The articles and changes made to the constitution changed the entire system from parliamentary to presidential regime.

May 1988:
General Zia dismissed Junejo’s government on alleged corruption charges of national wealth, exercising article 58(2) b. For further details click here

October 1988:
During the Haji Saifullah Khan vs The Federation of Pakistan’s case, the Supreme court of Pakistan declared that dissolution of assembly by General Zia was an unconstitutional move, however the court did not revoke the orders as the entire nation was already geared up for the elections.
For further details click here

Elections of 1988:
Soon after the death of Zia-ul-Haq, elections were held in the country, which were won by PPP. Benazir Bhutto, the daughter of Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, was elected as the first woman prime minister of Pakistan.

August 1990:
Following the rising conflicts between Khan and Bhutto, the former dissolved the parliament and sacked Bhutto on corruption charges, appointing Ghulam Mustafa Jatoi as the interim prime minister.
For further details click here

November 1990:
Pakistan Muslim League won the provincial and national elections and Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif was elected as the prime minister.

April 1993:
Sharif served as the prime minister till April 19, 1993, however Khan then dissolved the parliament again on charges of corruption by Sharif government and announced the date of elections to be held within a course of few months.

The elections were scheduled on July 14 but the Supreme Court declared Khan’s ruling as invalid and reinstated Sharif as the prime minister.
For further details click here

October 1993:
After the general elections of 1993, which were boycotted by significant political factions including MQM, PPP won with heavy majority and Bhutto was elected as the prime minister for the second time.

November 1996:
On the alleged charges of corruption and extrajudicial killings, Laghari dismissed Bhutto’s government and announced the date of next elections.
For further details click here

February 1997:
General elections were held on February 3, 1997 and Sharif was elected as the prime minister of Pakistan for the second time.

April 1997:
The thirteenth amendment was introduced to the constitution, which empowered prime minister and gave him the right to appoint the chief of army staff and other important civil and military officials.
For further details click here

November 1997:
The Supreme Court of Pakistan ordered Nawaz Sharif to appoint five judges which was ignored by him. Following the alleged misconduct chief justice Sajjad Ali Shah issued a contempt of court order against Sharif and summoned him to the court, after which Sharif agreed to carry out the orders.
For further details click here

One of the biggest mob attacks was staged on November 28, 1997, when thousands of political workers gate crashed into the Supreme Court of Pakistan to protest against the contempt of court hearing.
For further details click here

July 1999:
Asif Ali Zardari was imprisoned following charges pertaining to corruption and money laundering by Sharif government.
For further details click here

October 1999:
The military command, headed by General Parvez Musharraf, took charge of the state of affairs and staged a coup against Sharif’s regime.

Following the coup, Nawaz Sharif and his collaborators were arrested for various charges pertaining to hijacking and kidnapping, but were later pardoned by the government and sent to Saudi Arabia on exile.
For further details click here

April 2002:
Referendum was held in 2002 in which major portion of the Pakistanis voted for General Musharraf, resulting in his appointment as the president for the next five years.
For further details click here

March 2007:
Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry was suspended by the President Musharraf as he refused to oblige to him by stepping down from his position. Chaudhary was accused of corruption, misdemeanour and stepping out of judicial parameters.

His suspension instigated a political and judicial turmoil over the country – a turmoil which was considered one of the factors in toppling Musharraf’s government.
For further details click here

The ruling was given by a 13 member bench which unanimously decided that the petitions file by President Musharraf were unfounded and faulty.

October 2007:
Musharraf won the presidential election but was challenged by the Supreme Court.

November 2007:
President Musharraf declared a state of emergency and suspended the constitution and parliament simultaneously.
For further details click here

Musharraf also ordered the house arrest of the Chief Justice and the judges responsible for his reinstatement.

December 2007:
Musharraf revoked his previous orders and lifted the emergency on December 15.

February 2008:
General elections were held in Pakistan in which Pakistan People’s Party and Pakistan Muslim League-N won a major chunk of the seats. Both the majority parties formed a coalition government in which Yousuf Raza Gilani was elected as the Prime Minister of Pakistan.

June 2008:
The long march was organised by the lawyers, who sought the restoration of Iftikhar Mohammed Chaudhry as chief justice. The march concluded in Islamabad on June 14, demanding the ouster of President Musharraf.
For further details click here

August 2008:
Ruling coalition (PPP and PML-N) decided, for the third time, to reinstate Chaudhry.

December 2009:
The Supreme Court of Pakistan issued a petition to consider NRO 2007 to be null and void which provided immunity to the offenders of law, including money launderers and embezzlers. The ordinance of 2007 was drafted and approved by President Pervez Musharraf.

The court asked the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) to reopen the cases against President Zardari entailing the Swiss scam; allegations which the premier out rightly denies to date.

October 2011:
Mansoor Ijaz wrote an article in Financial Times where he revealed that he delivered a memorandum written by a Pakistani official posted in the US to Admiral Mike Mullen. The revelation created a frenzy of activity in Pakistan bringing the role of then ambassador to the United States, Husain Haqqani, into question.
For further details click here

The memo is speculated to have been written just after Osama bin Laden’s killing in Pakistan and allegedly seeks help from the US to rein in the country’s military and intelligence agencies.
For further details click here

November 2011:
Hussain Haqqani resigns from his position amidst chaos and allegations pertaining to him having drafted the controversial memo.
For further details click here

December 2011:
Nawaz Sharif and his alliances filed a petition in the Supreme Court of Pakistan to further investigate the memo scandal

The Supreme Court of Pakistan declares that the petitions filed by Nawaz Sharif and other political leaders to further investigate the memo scandal, are ‘maintainable’.

Prime Minister, Yousuf Raza Gilani publicly announced that he and his party members will not accept ‘a state within a state’; a remark which instigated a sense of disagreement between the civil and military command within the country.
For further details click here

However, General Kayani reiterated that the army does not aim to ‘stage a coup’ and this is another tactic deployed by the government to digress from memo scandal.

January 2012:
The Supreme Court of Pakistan issued a warning against the government to implement and execute the National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO) issued in the December of 2009, by writing to the Swiss government.

Moreover, Gilani is issued a contempt of court notice in the NRO implementation case, and is directed to appear before the apex court on January 19. He appoints Barrister Aitzaz Ahsan to represent him in the Supreme Court.
For further details click here

On the other hand, the apex court suspended Babar Awan’s licence to practice in the court and asked for a replacement of Awan with another lawyer to represent President Zardari in the Bhutto reference.
For further details click here

Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani appeared in front of the Supreme Court to defend the contempt of court charges filed against him.

The Supreme Court of Pakistan adjourned the session by postponing the hearing until February 1, 2012. However, the court exempted Gilani from appearing in the next scheduled hearing.
For further details click here

The memogate case took an interesting turn when Ijaz refused to come to Pakistan over security concerns, which instigated Haqqani to file an application to disqualify Ijaz from the proceedings of the case.
For further details click here and here

February 2012:
Supreme Court of Pakistan announced its verdict on February 2, 2012 signifying that Gilani will be indicted of the charges pertaining to contempt of court. Gilani has been summoned to appear before the court on February 13, 2012, however, he has decided to file an appeal before the appointed date.
For further details click here.

Moreover, during the same month, the ruling party and the opposition failed to reach an agreement on the 20th amendment's bill. The bill aims to validate more than two dozen post-eighteenth amendment by-elections.
For further details click here.

On February 9, Supreme Court of Pakistan adjourned the contempt of court hearing against Prime Minister Gilani and instructed Ahsan to complete his arguments by February 10. Chief Justice of Pakistan showed displeasure over certain points of the 200-page appeal and claimed that the language used in the document gave a negative impression of influencing the court of law.
For further details click here and here

On February 10, an eight-member bench dismissed Gilani’s appeal to review the previously announced verdict on contempt of court charges. Gilani has decided to appear before the court on the designated date.
For further details click here.

Moreover, the Supreme Court ordered ISI to present 11 missing persons, who have been in the agency's illegal detention, before the court on the same day or face action.
For further details click here.

Furthermore, memo case witnessed a few developments in which Islamabad high court allowed the commission to record Ijaz’s statements via video link from London on February 22, 2012 at 2 pm local time.
For further details click here.

The supreme Court of Pakistan indicted Prime Minister Gilani for charges pertaining to contempt of court on February 13, 2012.

The Supreme court ordered the prosecutor, attorney general, to submit sufficient documents by February 16.

PM's counsel has been ordered to compile and submit evidence by February22 whereas Gilani's evidence will be recorded on February 27 and 28.
For further details click here

After a fortnight of dispute and push backs, the government and opposition unanimously push through the National assembly a revised constitution amendment on February 14. The amendment provides for a strong Election Commission, a pre-election interim set-up and restoration of 28 suspended federal and provincial lawmakers.However the bill was deferred by the senate on February 17 because of various discrepancies between the opposition and the government.
For further details click here and here

The 20th amendment bill was finally adopted by the senate on Monday, February 20, 2012 but not unanimously as the National Assembly had done last week.

The adoption of the amendment by the upper house of parliament has cleared the way for the president to sign the bill which envisages an independent and powerful election commission, setting up of a neutral caretaker regime to hold general elections and restoration of 28 suspended lawmakers.
For further details click here.

Moreover, the hearing on contempt of court was further adjourned till February 28. The Supreme Court ordered Ahsan to submit complete evidence by the designated date.
For further details click here.

Furthermore on February 27, a day before the formal contempt of court hearing, Gilani's counsel submitted a miscellaneous application requesting two top government officers and a former law minister to be summoned as court witnesses.

Ahsan requested the court to summon Cabinet and Defence Secretary Nargis Sethi, Law Secretary Masood Chishti and former law minister Babar Awan to record their statements as court witnesses.
For further details click here.

Subsequently, on February 28, Ahsan, referring to the various arguments on appeal, said that he wanted to present evidences and witnesses and that a chance should be granted to him to examine them.

On March 8, the Supreme Court of Pakistan ordered Gilani to submit the written reply by March 19 and adjourned the contempt of court hearing till March 21. Simultaneously, on the same day, Supreme Court in a hearing pertaining to National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO) case, ordered Prime Minister Gilani to correspond with the Swiss authorities again.
For further details click here andhere.

On March 14, Ahsan, whilst addressing the media, said that the Attorney General Maulvi Anwarul Haq, being the prosecutor of the case, was ordered by the court to write a letter to the Swiss authorities. He said that the orders were given to the prosecutor in his absence on March 8.

Ahsan further commented that he will present his arguments on not corresponding with the Swiss authorities in the court on March 19 and 21 respectively.
For further details click here.

Prime Minister Gilani, on March 15, publicly announced his refusal to correspond with the Swiss authorities.

He further commented that writing a letter would be a violation to the constitution which carries death sentence whereas the refusal to correspond might result in six months' imprisonment which is better than the former penalty.
For further details click here.

Gilani, whilst addressing the journalists at his residence on March 18, said that he is ready to resign from the premiership if that will resolve the issue of writing a letter to Swiss authorities.
For further details click here.

Moreover, Ahsan on March 19 stated that Gilani’s conviction will not necessarily result in disqualification as a sentence of less than two years cannot affect anyone’s eligibility. On the same day, Gilani submitted his written reply in the Supreme Court of Pakistan stating his official refusal to correspond with the Swiss authorities.
For further details click here andhere

The hearing on contempt of court against PM Gilani continued on March 21 in which Ahsan said that they never refused to correspond with the Swiss officials neither did they disagree with the court's orders. Ahsan also said that he still believes that corresponding with the Swiss authorities will not serve the purpose as President Zardari enjoys immunity.

Furthermore, Justice Asif Khoja said that if the accused pleads guilty, then we can think about leaving the matter up to the people.

Ahsan was of the opinion that expecting a fair judgment from the seven-member bench after six-option verdict was difficult.

Contempt of court hearing continued, on March 22, for the second consecutive day in which Ahsan said that according to article 10 (a), fair trial remains a constitutional right of every Pakistani citizen. Ahsan also claimed that the current trial contradicts the aforementioned article.

Moreover, Ahsan challenged the eligibility of judges who issued a show cause notice to Gilani, however the court replied to his argument by stating that if Ahsan's stance on this issue is considered valid then every defendant will feel free to challenge the court.

The hearing was adjourned till March 26, 2012 however on the designated date, the contempt of court hearing was adjourned without being heard as Ahsan was unable to appear before the court.
For further details click here andhere.

On March 27, the Supreme Court adjourned the contempt of court hearing against PM Gilani till April 12.

On March 29, the Supreme Court adjourned the hearing for National Reconciliation Order (NRO) implementation case till April 16.

According to the court, the final verdict for the case is expected to be announced on the same date.

Moreover, PM Gilani may face another contempt case as the court decided to issue an appropriate order on April 16 after expressing displeasure over the response the prime minister had submitted on March 21 in which he threw the ball back to the judiciary’s court by requesting it to first settle the contempt matter and then raise the issue of implementation of the NRO verdict.
For Further details click here and here.

April 2012:

On April 12, the Supreme Court resumed hearing of the contempt of court hearing against Prime Minister Gilani.

Ahsan argued that under Article 10 (a) of the constitution of Pakistan, the sitting bench remains ineligible to hear the case.

He further stated that the clause on transparent proceedings emphasises on the fact that no person can be a judge in his own case. However, Justice Khosa said that all proceedings regarding contempt of court cases are only completed by the court.

On March 13, The Supreme Court resumed the hearing of the contempt of court case against Prime Minister Gilani.

The newly appointed Attorney General of Pakistan, Irfan Qadir, was also present in the court.

Qadir was permitted by the court to act as a prosecutor in the case and was provided with two days to start his arguments.

Whilst presenting his evidence, PM's counsel Ahsan, informed the court that he was being harassed by a particular media group and was being accused of lying. Ahsan also asked the court to provide him with security.
For further details click here.

The hearing against PM's contempt case continued on April 16 and Ahsan, whilst defending his client, reiterated that under Article 10-(a) of the constitution, the present bench could not try the prime minister for contempt as that would be in conflict with the principles of a fair trial.

Moreover, Justice Khosa commented on Ahsan's argument by saying that the court was exercising its authority to conduct the trial.

Ahsan also requested the court to delay its decision on the National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO) implementation case as he is of the view that his arguments would be of no use after a decision on the NRO is announced.

The verdict on NRO was expected today however NRO's hearing was adjourned till May 3 whilst the court directed authorities to bring former attorney general Malik Abdul Qayyum back to Pakistan.

Presenting his arguments regarding presidential immunity before the court, Ahsan reiterated that heads of state enjoyed immunity from prosecution in criminal and civil cases in courts across the globe.

Ahsan concluded his arguments with respect to Article 10 A and also emphasised on the point that parliament remains independent regarding the law and constitution.

During the hearing of the contempt of court case against prime minister, on April 19, Ahsan said the United Nations, in one of its reports, had granted immunity to heads of state from prosecution in a foreign country.

Ahsan also produced the report before the Supreme Court’s seven-judge bench, headed by Justice Nasirul Mulk, to support his argument on presidential immunity.

He further said that the International Court of Justice (ICJ) had also stopped courts from trying heads of state in the past.
For further details click here.

The hearing on contempt of court continued on April 20 during which Ahsan said that the prime minister only followed procedure and implemented the summaries presented to him.

He added that if the summaries did not provide the premier with the ‘right’ input, then he cannot be held responsible for committing contempt of court by not writing to Swiss authorities.

Ahsan moreover said that writing the letter would demean the office of the president.

Supreme Court of Pakistan, on April 26, found PM Gilani guilty of contempt of court for refusing to reopen corruption cases against the president, but gave him only a symbolic sentence of 30 seconds detention in the court room.
For further details click here.

Prime Minister Gilani, on April 26, refused to step down after his contempt of court conviction, saying only the country’s parliament could remove him from office.

“There is no law to remove an elected prime minister. Parliament is the supreme authority and only this parliament has the authority to remove me,” he said in a defiant appearance in the National Assembly a day after the Supreme Court verdict.
For further details click here.

Prime Minister Gilani, on April 30, said he would not resign from his position, adding that the Supreme Court’s conviction had no relation with the process of disqualification.

Speaking to reporters in Islamabad, he said there was no law under which the court could disqualify an elected representative of the people.

Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry said, on May 1, 2012, that three judges who were part of the bench that heard the contempt case against the prime minister would not be available if a review petition came up.

The verdict stated that the PM did not comply with court's orders and deliberately disregarded the court. It also said that it is clear that the judiciary was ridiculed at the highest levels of the government.
For further details click here.

Advocate Muhammad Azhar Siddique, on May 11, submitted a petition in the Supreme Court of Pakistan seeking the disqualification of Prime Minister Gilani.

The petitioner contended that a convicted person cannot hold the prime minister’s office.

He further added that neither Speaker National Assembly Fehmida Mirza nor the Election Commission of Pakistan has any role in this regard.
For further details click here.

National Assembly Speaker Dr Fehmida Mirza, on May 24, decided not to forward the disqualification reference against Prime Minsiter Gilani to the Election Commission of Pakistan after his conviction by the Supreme Court in the contempt of court case.
For further details click here.

Prime Minister Gilani and his close legal and political advisers, on May 25, discussed the pros and cons of challenging the Supreme Court’s decision convicting the prime minister in the contempt case, decided late in the night not to file the appeal.

According to reliable sources, the advisers were of the opinion that the advantage gained from the favourable ruling of the National Assembly Speaker should not be put to risk by going to the Supreme Court with the appeal because the court may decide to remove what has been described as ‘lacunas and ambiguity’ in the shorter order and detailed judgment in the contempt case.
For further details click here.

The Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N), on May 28, filed a petition in the Supreme Court against a ruling by the NA Speaker refusing to disqualify the prime minister.

The petition challenged NA Speaker Dr Fehmida Mirza’s decision not to disqualify PM Gilani as the Prime Minister of Pakistan, a month after the Supreme Court convicted Gilani of contempt.
For further details click here.

Prime Minister Gilani, on May 29, said that both Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) Chief Nawaz Sharif and Pakistan Tehrik-i-Insaf (PTI) Chairman Imran Khan were not members of parliament which was why they could not understand the significance of speaker's ruling.

Speaking to media representatives in Islamabad, the premier categorically stated that National Assembly Speaker Dr Fehmida Mirza’s ruling pertaining to the disqualification reference was final and could not be challenged.
For further details click here.

June 2012:

The Supreme Court, on June 6, admitted the petitions filed against Speaker Fehmida Mirza’s ruling on the disqualification reference against Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani for hearing.

The Supreme Court resumed the hearing into the Speaker ruling case on June 18.

During the hearing, a written reply from Speaker National Assembly Fehmida Mirza was submitted in the apex court by Attorney General Irfan Qadir.

Ahsan said that under Article 184 (3) of the Constitution, the Supreme Court did not have the authority to hear the petitions.
For further details click here.

The Supreme Court on June 19 ruled Speaker National Assembly Fehmida Mirza’s ruling as void and declared that Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani stood disqualified since April 26. Following Gilani's disqualification, President Asif Ali Zardari disregarded the option of early general elections and said that the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) will announce the name of the new prime minister after National Assembly’s session on June 22.
For further details click here and here.

The Supreme Court of Pakistan, on June 27, ordered the Attorney General to consult Prime Minister Raja Pervaiz Ashraf and inform the court regarding his decision on NRO implementation case.

The judicial bench has asked the prime minister to submit his reply on the issue of corresponding with the Swiss authorities.
For further details click here.

July 2012:

On July 9, the National Assembly adopted contempt of court bill amidst protest and walkout from the main opposition party PML-N, which also boycotted the session over resumption of Nato supplies.

The bill will provide a shelter to top government officials against contempt of court proceedings.

President Asif Ali Zardari later signed the Contempt of Court Bill 2012, under which, if an accused or convict of contempt of court files an appeal, his/her show-cause notice or original order will remain suspended till final disposal of the matter.

The law also states: “An accused person may also at any stage submit an apology and the court, if satisfied, may discharge him or remit his sentence.”
For further details click here and here.

The Supreme Court, on July 12, ruled that it had directed the attorney general to get orders on NRO implementation from the prime minister by stating that PM must correspond with the Swiss authorities.

According to the AG, the order was forwarded to the federal law ministry.

The Supreme Court on July 13 issued notices to the federation and the Attorney General to file their response, during a hearing on a petition filed against newly legislated Contempt of Court Act 2012.
For further details click here.

The attorney general moreover said that the federal cabinet and the prime minister would make a collective decision on the issue of corresponding with Swiss authorities.

The Supreme Court of Pakistan, on July 20, constituted a five-member bench, headed by Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammed Chaudhry, to hear the petitions filed against the new contempt of court law.
For further details click here.

The Supreme Court on July 23 rejected the federation’s request of a full court to hear the petitions against the recently passed contempt of court law.
For further details click here.

The Supreme Court, on July 24, resumed the hearing of petitions against the recently passed contempt of court law.

During the hearing Justice Khawaja remarked that with the new law, an attempt had been made to provide immunity to the privileged class.

Moreover, on the same day, the federal government submitted its reply in the Supreme court stating that the prime minister could not write the letter to authorities in Switzerland to reopen cases against President Asif Ali Zardari.

However, the reply, submitted by Attorney General Irfan Qadir, was subsequently returned with objections.

Attorney General Irfan Qadir began his arguments on the issue of writing a letter to Swiss authorities to reopen cases against President Asif Ali Zardari.

Qadir said that laws should be enforced and that the Supreme Court should not monitor cases in the NAB, adding that no officer of the NAB was bound to report to the apex court.

The Supreme Court also heard the petitions against the contempt of court law.

During the hearing, Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry said in his remarks that it was the foresight of the politicians that the issue was not brought up during the passage of the 18 Amendment and in turn the contempt of court law was given protection.

The Supreme Court on July 30 resumed the hearing of petitions against the contempt of court law.

During the hearing, petitioner Rana Mohammad Jameel was presenting his arguments before the bench.

A petitioner, Shahid Orakzai, said that the new contempt law would have to be read in the light of the Constitution.

Chief Justice Iftikhar said that the trend in the country was such that if a decision was in favour of a party, the party considered it fair, but if it was against that party, the same party considered it unjust.
For further details click here.

The Supreme Court on July 31 resumed the hearing of petitions against the contempt of court law.

During the hearing, the federation’s counsel, Abdul Shakoor Paracha, said the parliament’s authority over law making could not be challenged.

Paracha moreover argued that the new contempt of court law does not in any manner restrict the powers of the judiciary.

The Chief Justice said that the government’s claim that the new law was without flaws was incorrect, adding that, all matters of public interest could be taken up in courts.
For further details click here.

August 2012:

The Supreme Court on August 1 resumed the hearing of petitions against the contempt of court law.

Chief Justice Iftikhar said the Constitution did not say that those holding public offices would be immune to prosecution in case they commit contempt of court.
For further details click here.

The Supreme Court on August 2 resumed the hearing of petitions against the contempt of court law.

During the hearing, Attorney General Irfan Qadir said that four of the judges on the bench were prejudiced.

The attorney general also said that he had tried speaking up but was told to remain quiet by the judges on the bench.

The Supreme Court on August 3 declared void Sections 3, 7, 8, 10 and 11 of the contempt of court law calling them unconstitutional and illegal.
For further details click here and here.

After intense deliberations and consultations with constitutional and legal experts, the coalition government decided on August 5 to move a petition in the Supreme Court, seeking review of the court order in which the apex court had struck down the Contempt of Court Act 2012 (Coca).

President Asif Ali Zardari held a detailed meeting with the Law Minister Farooq H Naek to discuss the available options to save the second prime minister from being sent home.
For further details click here.

The government on August 8 filed an appeal in the Supreme Court to review its recent verdict scrapping the contempt of court law.

In the appeal, the government’s counsel, Abdul Shakoor Paracha, stated that the law was only passed following proper legislative procedures practised by the parliament and that the parliament had the authority to legislate.

Moreover, on the same day, the Supreme Court issued a show-cause notice to Prime Minister Raja Pervez Ashraf over his failure to implement its directive of writing a letter to Swiss authorities to reopen graft cases against President Asif Ali Zardari.
For further details click here and here.

The Supreme Court on August 15 heard the government’s review petition challenging its July 12 order asking the prime minister to write to Swiss authorities for reopening graft cases against President Asif Ali Zardari.

Justice Usmani remarked that the Constitution demanded that the prime minister obey the court’s orders.

The attorney general said that it was not a matter of anyone’s ego and that implementation on Article 248-(1) was necessary for the rule of law and for supremacy of the constitution.
For further details click here.

The Supreme Court on August 16 adjourned the hearing of a government petition seeking review of the court’s July 12 order which directed the prime minister to comply with its judgment in the NRO implementation case.

During the hearing, Attorney General Irfan Qadir told the bench that he had held meetings with the prime minister and with the federal law minister, adding that, the government wanted the matter to be resolved “once and for all”.

Prime Minister Raja Pervez Ashraf appeared before the Supreme Court of Pakistan on August 27.

Prime Minister Ashraf requested the court to give him four to six weeks’ time to write the letter to Swiss authorities.

Justice Khosa gave three days to the prime minister to resolve the matter saying the matter could be resolved in three days and that the prime minister should act on the court’s directive in that time period.
For further details click here.

October 2012

The Supreme Court approved the draft of a letter it had ordered the government to write to the Swiss authorities to reopen graft cases against the president.

Justice Khosa revealed the text of the three-paragraph letter to be sent to the attorney general of Geneva (Switzerland). The letter asks for the reopening of $60 million graft cases against the president but, at the same time, emphasises the legal protection and immunity available to him without mentioning constitutional provisions.

The government has finally dispatched a letter to Swiss legal authorities in line with the Supreme Court’s order in the NRO case, seeking revival of a graft case which also involves President Asif Ali Zardari.

The National Accountability Bureau on Tuesday summoned former prime minister Yousuf Raza Gilani on Dec 11 to record his statement in a case pertaining to the implementation of the controversial National Reconciliation Ordinance.

A five-member bench of the apex court headed by Justice Anwar Zaheer Jamali resumed the hearing over the NRO verdict implementation case.

During the hearing, Federal Law Minister Farooq H. Naek requested the court to dismiss the case and said that the letter, written by attorney general of Pakistan and sent via diplomatic channel, had been received by Swiss attorney general.

The Supreme Court ordered the arrest of Prime Minister Raja Ashraf in the rental power plant case. Prime Minister Ashraf was accused of receiving kickbacks and commissions in the RPPs case during his previous stint as federal minister for water and power.

Comments (78) Closed

its an exquisitely written article which trully reflects the chequred and troubled
history of pakistan.

Recommend0

farqaleet

Jan 26, 2012 12:57am

great work.

Recommend0

Sikanadr

Jan 26, 2012 12:50pm

This is a fabulous work produced and an eye opener for us.

Recommend0

syed

Jan 26, 2012 05:19pm

The true face of our Judicial system from 1950's. The Art of 'Doctrine of necessity' very much exists today, serving the powerful ones such as Nawaz Sharif etc.
Article and datelines are very well written but when it reaches to Musharraf, the writer forgets to write about the CJ of how he endorsed the illegal govt and yet he is in power.

Recommend0

Asif Iqbal

Jan 26, 2012 08:15pm

No mention of the 1970's Martial Law? Selective memory of "intellectuals" contributes to chequered history indeed!

Recommend0

Fawad Zafar

Jan 27, 2012 12:34am

Well Crafted Article

Recommend0

bikak

Jan 27, 2012 08:44am

The writer forgot to mention December 2007 killing of MBNB (mohterma Benazir Bhutto)

Recommend0

Jahangir

Jan 27, 2012 11:34pm

Not pointing out that the current Chief Justice of Supreme Court is himself an NRO judge and partly responsible for bring the Generals, severely impacts the credibility of this article.

Recommend0

Nawaz

Jan 29, 2012 03:18pm

Very good research work.

Recommend0

Syed Haider

Jan 30, 2012 10:38am

Very rightly put...

Recommend0

Amna

Jan 30, 2012 03:23pm

Thanks for explaining this in layman terms!

Recommend0

Nasim Zehra

Feb 03, 2012 04:06pm

Excellent research but maybe u shld give a link to this on the front page of your paper otherwise few will benefit from your reserach.

Recommend0

Dr. Zubairi, USA

Feb 03, 2012 07:11pm

Well Written. At least for the current scenario Pakistan's Supreme Court so far has been just growl and no bites.In its verbally agressive mode it has yet to implement the constitution in any viable form. From this tradition I would be surprised if it gives more than a slap on the wrist of the Prime Minister who represents a battery of government officials and lawyers who have publicly and blatantly shown defiance of the court. The court has yet to reject the immunity of the President because the immunity simply is against the Pakistan constitution and clearly its Preamble. The PM is invoking President's immunity for crimes committed before he became the President. How silly is that? ( Prof.Zubairi, USA)

Recommend0

k B Kale

Feb 04, 2012 03:58am

DAWN may like to consider some omissions pointed out by its knowledgeable readers & publish a revised, more accurate "timeline".

Recommend0

ppurush

Feb 04, 2012 04:51am

Just wondering how Iftikar is able to continue as Cheif Justice of Pakistan supreme court at the age of 64.
Why didn't he retire?
Pakistan governments should not give any extension of service to any of the officers such as justices and commanders. They should go like any other government servents.
thanks

Recommend0

Mudassir

Feb 04, 2012 09:34am

good work done by he researcher to easily understand the political history of Pakistan...................

Recommend0

Zia Mian

Feb 05, 2012 11:58pm

Reading the history of my nation, I find Pakistan either extremly patient and tolarant or extremly aggressive and emotional. Nation building is a process where you make progress based on each issue one at a time and giving it your full time to make responsible decisions that can remain valid for generations to follow. I have observed the comments of U.S. republican candidate who consider our country actions at Childish without saying we are childish and I could read between the lines what he meant. I am the first born generation of Pakistanies and truely love and care for the well being of our country. Unless we bring visionary people to leadership level with long term solutions to all of our problems, the disappointments of people expectations will continue. Choosing people to lead you with knowledge, patiance and vision in each sector is the only way to create a peaceful, prosprouse and morally strong Pakistan that can proudly contribute to the entire humanity and make our nation beautiful dreams come to through.

Recommend0

Tanwir

Apr 07, 2012 07:37pm

I think Republican candidates views about Pakistan nation as childish are correct. Pakistanis are extremely emotional, illogical, incohorrent like a child and history has shown this.

Recommend0

Tanwir

Apr 07, 2012 07:40pm

Excellent work and one should salute the researcher(s).

Recommend0

Salman

Apr 08, 2012 02:04am

The problem isn't with this age factor. Factually speaking, the high-ups who are running the country, need to be "chosen" or "elected" by educated people.

Recommend0

AA

Apr 08, 2012 07:14am

The time has come for the people of rise against the feudal lords and those who use Islam and democracy to advance their own agenda. REVOLUTION is the only answer, PAKISTAN Spring Pakistan Spring is the only answer.

Recommend0

noone840

Apr 09, 2012 12:35am

i think Aitizaz Ahsan wants to be Prime Minister of Pakistan........nd he is playing a pretty dirty role :)

Recommend0

AA

Apr 09, 2012 03:17pm

The best system for Pakistan is the Presidential democracy where people directly vote for the head of state. Members of parliament are not elected so that they can become ministers and senate members are also chosen by election vote directly from the people. YES, in this American system is similar to what I am talking about. President after election then chooses ministers who have to go through Parliament and senate confirmation and have to be master of their domain and very accountable for their actions. Unlike now, where ministers are party Members of parliament all they are doing is driving their party agenda.

Recommend0

Milton

Apr 09, 2012 01:35pm

Sir, You forget all human beings are equal and should get equal opportunities in a civilised country. Leaders should (political) always be elected by all the "good,bad and the ugly" of the nation.
The normal rule of the civilised nations in the world are directly elected to use powers of a sovereign nation, the indirectly elected must never be allowed to exercise powers of the state.
All those claiming to be elected in Pakistan have poor justification as democrates. The President is elected indirectly, the prime minister was appointed after the elections ,the one who appointed him was only nominated to the position by a dead political person without any resource to the people. What a setup and they claim themselves to be elected by the people!

Recommend0

Tanwir

Apr 10, 2012 06:45pm

How can government sack the judges (They are more politicians than the judges). Musharraf did it by sacking Iftikhar and the whole lawyers community plus political parties raised hue and cry and result is in front of you.

Recommend0

Shahid

Apr 09, 2012 08:02pm

If President enjoys the immunity, then court is asking the PM to do something which is not constitutional. How come court does not state that the President does not enjoy the immunity and therefore, the order must be obyed. Court is playing games and thinks nobody is above the SC. If anything, I think these judges should be sacked for asking PM to do something which is not constitutional.

Recommend0

Mohammad

Apr 10, 2012 02:31pm

wat an article
really appreciated :)

Recommend0

Usman Malik

Apr 27, 2012 11:44am

That was out of the context. It's judiciary vs executive not terrorism vs judiciary. hope it helps.

Recommend0

BILAL ARIF

Apr 27, 2012 06:55pm

Assalam-u-Alaikum ~ 64 years hist0ry 0f 0ur bel0ved c0untry in a few mins... Infact n0t all but all ab0ut judi VS exec....... g00d w0rk d0ne by researchers & editors bc0z in present c0nditi0n every where questi0ns are rising ab0ut "ANTI / PRO". F0r a wise man dat's en0gh....
But i w0uld like t0 menti0n here that this decisi0n 0f April 26 is g00d in that perspective that this w0uld n0t make call themselves "Martyres".

Recommend0

namakparay

Apr 26, 2012 07:18pm

Reblogged this on Namakparay and commented:
An excellent short history of the turf war between judiciary and the sarkaar!

Recommend0

Ayoub zehri

Apr 29, 2012 10:00pm

Apex court seem more concerned in daily affairs of unpopular ruling party. Thex should focus on plethora of panding cases. Judges ve never brought social revolution in human history

Recommend0

Salma

May 09, 2012 08:42pm

ZAB was not charged for any corruption - please get the facts right - this is a distortion of history - time line should be accurate. It also calls the mullah movement against Bhutto as masses poured on the streets the writer is biased - dawn editor should check. Just 2 examples

Recommend0

@MurtazaABhutta

May 09, 2012 08:13pm

very true indeed

Recommend0

Kamran Shaikh

May 08, 2012 09:22pm

How many Army Generals have been charged by this SC? Suo moto is exclusively being used against democracy, thank you for educating us about the evil of 'Doctrine of necessity’. First Military activism and now Judicial activism, what are the chances of a real Democracy for my foresaken nation. Excellent effort.

Recommend0

Capt Mansur

May 08, 2012 12:55pm

I just see Politcis.No Justice. The Judges have been politcans themselves, that is why people are losing hope in getting justice. So sad

Recommend0

paktvportal

May 08, 2012 03:43pm

Great stuff

Recommend0

Javaid

May 09, 2012 04:53am

i've been reading the various comments and some seem to set the benchmark for the judiciary as a perfect judiciary whereas politicians are set no standards - they are at liberty to do anything. so, if the judciary does anything outside the bounds of a perfect judiciary they get criticised, even if it is to try to check the gross illegality and immorality of the politicians. for all their shortcomings, we should be clamouring to support the sentiments of the judiciary. why on earth should we accept politicians that laugh at us and loot the national wealth?

Recommend0

Nighat

Jun 21, 2012 01:21pm

A real Kindergarten… In fact everyone seems so busy constructing their tactics and strategies that the country’s problems are entirely forgotten.

Recommend0

sarmad

Jul 16, 2012 07:22am

Replace 2. with:
Give a chance to democracy to flourish

Recommend0

iqbal ghori

Jun 27, 2012 07:01pm

Very poor. We are the people just go by the things narrated in general terms. Not giving any back ground nor reasoning and we are here to view comments. Very short sighted we are. How n why JC is in hurry? Who made him hero do u know? Not people but something behind the curtain. Politicians (where are true politicians - they are conspirator - they are just party to it) yes, somehow, but the main players yr hero JC are those who removed him in 2007. You will find this truth after 5-10 years when true historian will write the story. Not by black sheep of journalism.

Recommend0

iqbal ghori

Jun 27, 2012 07:58pm

I hate IK . He doesn't know what is politics. It is not cricket or cricket politics he played when he was captain. You were once World Champion not because of him, but there were legends like Javed Miandad, Inzamam n Wasim Akram n yes aqib javed. Go n see his past and then say he is clean.

Recommend0

Abdul Waheed

Jul 14, 2012 10:11am

The government surrendered many things to judiciary like they dismissed more than 100 judges, 02 NAB chairmen, PG NAB, Attorney Generals, Secretary Law, DGs FIA but they took stand and showed resistence to surrender the immunity under Article 248 to Head of State to sfeguard the prestige of the institution of the Presidency for which they altered one Prime Minister and are determined to sacrifice more. The entire episosode is ego clash of two personality i.e President Zardari and CJ Iftikhar. As a citizen of Pakistan I favour that for prestige of the institution of the Presidency (Head of State), the government should not surrender the constitutional immunity.

Recommend0

Gulsher

Jul 14, 2012 10:55am

all comments are planted and this Newspaper is party nay B team against judiciary, the prove is that even benign comments in the support of judiciary are not posted including mine, i will certainly expose this on social media

Recommend0

Shahid

Jul 16, 2012 04:39am

I think we need an upgrade in our governance model. In this age of internet, cell phone and social media it is completely ridiculous to have a model of government where you vote somebody and stuck for 5 years. I propose a model where my vote is "dynamic". I should be able to vote a candidate for various issues and I should be able to "take my vote back" from the elected one anytime I want. This would truly change the way we govern. It is possible and worth experimenting.

Recommend0

m furqan

Jul 16, 2012 12:07am

Our Judges, the Generals and the Parliamentarians all have their private wealth & power ambitions and so are corrupt to the core.

Recommend0

Zahur Gilani

Jun 21, 2012 08:42pm

To President Asif Ali Zardari,
Chief Justice of Pakistan has used his power and removed duly elected Prime Minister of Pakistan from office. The Prime Minister paid a heavy price in order to preserve the diginity of the office of the President . The President has the constitutional power under Article45 of the constitution and I quote( The President shall have power to grant pardon, reprieve and respite and to remit, suspend or commute any sentence passed by any court, tribunal or other authority.) I think it would serve greater justice if the President exercised this power and remove the disqualification of Syed Yusuf Raza Gilani to hold public office.

Recommend0

saythetruth

Jun 20, 2012 08:36pm

The heat is on the politician new election are need, too much corruption. Judiciary should go after the politicians first and after that businessmen of Pakistan and not to forget army. Pakistani elite has forgot a very important lesson and the must be reminded
Job of Politician is to sever the people of Pakistan and protect Pakistan image inside and outside of the country.
Businessmen job is help the country increase export by producing quality products. Improve Pakistan image inside and outside of Pakistan by being honest and competitive
Army's job is to protect the people of Pakistan from inside and outside evil plan.
For now it appears Pakistani politician, army and businessmen are all doing same job how exploit the system to make money.
Judiciary can force each entity to do their job only. If all these tree entities do there job with honesty we have nothing to worry.

Recommend0

Arif Khan

Jul 05, 2012 12:08pm

A comprehensive Article providing perfect re-cap of events.

Recommend0

Nighat

Jun 21, 2012 01:43pm

Quite disgusting! It’s hard to imagine whether these protagonists realise what they are doing. Do they believe they are in a Kindergarten? Fighting and quibbling instead of thinking in the interest of their nation. They are obviously no leaders but selfish people with absolutely no vision to rule or think for the country’s benefit.
Many Pakistanis do truly care for the well being of the country and want to be respected by other nations. Instead we’re laughed upon thanks to the behaviour of our elected leaders!

Recommend0

haris

Jun 19, 2012 03:18pm

Thanks AA, I finally found a like-minded person. I have been saying this for last 7 seven years in various forums and news paper commentary sections but unfortunately many perceive it as 'Ridiculous'. The Presidential System, to some extent, resembles Islamic Khilafat System where President (Khalifa) has the authority to form his Cabinet, choose a Military Head, Speaker at Senate, Appoint Judges (however, their appointment could also be done by an independent authority) and appointment of Attorney General, Foreign Minister, Defense Minister and Information Ministers. Each State has the authority to elect their Governor who works under President only. Their election could be done by direct-public-voting of that particular state.
But President's election should be carried out by "Electoral College System of Direct Public Voting" which is the best form of election. The election and rein of Hazrat Usman R.A election as Khalifa through Electoral College Election System and his appointment as Khalifa is the best example to implement Presidential System in Pakistan. Remember during his rein the Islamic State enjoys more wealth, harmony, solidarity and prosperity than any other ruler of the World.

Recommend0

Gulbaz Mushtaq

Jun 19, 2012 03:01pm

I am affraid you must have not read the supreme court verdict. The president's official works are immune (Art. 248 Constitution). The matter can even then be considered by SC under (Art. 190 Constitution). But you know, PPP lawyers did not pressed its point before Supreme Court that Presesident enjoys under our constitution, then how come you blame Supreme Court. They should have raise this plea but they avoided because Aitzaz Ahsan knew that President does not enjoy such immunity. THEN why they talk in public about that immunity which they never claim when asked on relevant forum (see PM Comtempt judgement). Interestingly, Aitzaz Ahsan took plea that under Internation Law and Sweden's law, President is immune. WHY to refer to International Law??? And when Supreme COurt asked that is he asking for immunity under the Constituion. Aitzaz said no, it can only be claimed by Preseident. Why didn't you refer to Art. 248 of Constitution to which you refer in public. You ought to settle this question in the court. We should understand now that the government is playing tectics and just engaging the nation on non-issues.

Recommend0

amarnawaz

Jun 24, 2012 02:21pm

Turkey did good job by gradually reducing the army influence. I believe in Imran khan. A man who wants politics for the betterment of pakistan. I hate PPP zadari group and PMLN, ANP, MQM.
We need!
1. Excerice vote
2. Give a chance to imran khan.

Recommend0

Keti Zilgish

Jul 14, 2012 10:01am

Education is a hoax designed by the elites to facilitate their feudalism (or capitalism, as the case may be).

Recommend0

Keti Zilgish

Jul 14, 2012 10:05am

You have not read the article properly.

Recommend0

Vorshal

Jul 15, 2012 03:44pm

Great compilation of events in Pakistan, summarizing the events of power play leading to the utter chaos, corruption, and power corrupting the democratic set-up and its constitution!
Do we have a way out, and if yes, how and when?

Recommend0

sarmad

Jul 16, 2012 07:20am

If I go by your account then court should have asked to open the cases against president in Pakistani courts. But they did not, which means president enjoys immunity under article 248 as claimed by the Government. Now question is why this has not been brought in court, simply because president immunity is beyond any doubt. If it was allowed to discuss then the judges who are in a mood of calling a night when it is a day in the name of interpretation would have taken it off. Remember other day CJ was noted saying that Parliament cannot legislate against constitution and Islam.

Recommend0

Bob

Jun 19, 2012 12:39pm

Why he should become pm? He is above him, he can as SC judge he can always throw out PM! Dream anyone would like to have should be SC judge:-)

Recommend0

Mustafa

Jun 21, 2012 02:50am

I strongly feel, but I may be wrong, removal of a Prime Minister from his/her office is a threat to continuity of a government and the responsibily falls on the President to take appropriate action the same way as he is required to take when the country is at war or in disaster. Many countries have suspended constitution to take care of emergency.

Recommend0

Mohammed S Khan

Jun 21, 2012 11:59pm

The article provides excellent insight as to how the country was governed and how the responsible persons behaved so irrresponsibly in handling the political system.

Recommend0

Abdul

Jun 23, 2012 05:40am

Did not Pakistan have any law under which President can be tried. Why do we write letter to foreign govt.?

Recommend0

shankar

Jul 13, 2012 10:41am

Good one!

Recommend0

mohsin ali

Jul 13, 2012 06:10am

clearly agree with your point shahid. you see today we look towards court as a watchdog for government actions. what about thousands of pending cases in the highest court??? according to CJ it would take ten additional months to solve those cases. is there any accountability or check towards the actions done by court??? certainly none. it has come out as a new dictator using unconstitutional powers by a non elected institution to oust elected people

Recommend0

N..K

Jul 13, 2012 06:52am

Aitzaz took international law because the case is international .. thats why he is referring to international law... and how much negative publicity Pakistan get by writing a letter against its own president who is IMMUNE under international law and that statement is even made by Swiss AG. ......
These judges are just playing power game .... parliament is supreme everyone knows thats its a parliamentary form of govt.

Recommend0

N..K

Jul 13, 2012 06:53am

exactly !!!!!!!!

Recommend0

Gulsher

Jul 14, 2012 06:04am

in the beginning g of this report it is said that public perception about judiciary is not good but this report, like thousands of others of this kind in historical ground, though factual are attempts to create such perceptions and strengthen that perception . the past of all including judiciary is tainted but so is of the politicians. judiciary has learnt lessons, acknowledged its past sins and have started anew but politicians haven't.
Gulsher panhwer
Johi, Dsitrict Dadu

Recommend0

Keti Zilgish

Jul 14, 2012 09:30am

Have you tried to figure out exactly how happy '99%' Americans are with their system today. If you care to see some American history you could easily refer to Lysander Spooner to begin with.

Recommend0

Keti Zilgish

Jul 14, 2012 09:41am

Representative democracy is the culprit and direct democracy is the only successful solution to this problem. Most of the so-called 'first world' has already arrived at this conclusion.

Recommend0

Keti Zilgish

Jul 14, 2012 09:55am

"How can government sack the judges". In answering this i am by no means suggesting that what America has at present is satisfactory. However, the "higher judiciary" in America is only appointed by the President and must be approved and can later be indicted by the legislature, both houses of which are directly elected leaving some room for the concept of 'balance of powers' to attach at least a semblance of legitimacy to the state as unsuccessful as such precautions have subsequently proven to be.

Recommend0

Cyrus Howell

Jul 15, 2012 04:40am

Agreed.

Recommend0

Capt C M Khan

Aug 03, 2012 02:53pm

Mr Furqan, you said it all, I donot have to comment further.
Just more suffering for the poor people in a country where all big wigs are corrupt.
Good job by Dawn to publish this

Recommend0

Syed

Aug 03, 2012 07:00pm

Article is excellent. Ch Iftikhar is playing a political game against present Govt. Shameful for him as CJ

Recommend0

Humanity

Aug 03, 2012 08:42pm

What the heck? It is obvious that the President is guilty and he knows and his entire government knows that. Does a man with such a criminal record should remain the President of a country?

Recommend0

ArshadPatel,Ohio,USA

Aug 04, 2012 08:37am

Pakistan: My country : The Past ... Horrible. The present ..... Corrupt. And The Future ...... Very Dark.

Recommend0

Shankar

Aug 05, 2012 02:46pm

He was electe was he not?

Recommend0

Kamran

Aug 05, 2012 01:37pm

It is so easy to indict anyone from out there in your cosy residence in ohio my dear. Many things are happening. Media picture is really very different from the real one here.

Recommend0

Abdul Waheed

Aug 05, 2012 01:48am

There is no accountability of judges even for their blunders. The present judges are doing politics though they enjoy permanent employment with fringe benefits throughout their life and even after their death their family members enjoy huge benefits. The present judges are deadly prejudice against this weak political govenment and have no fear because they know that this weak government is helpless to take action against them. The judges have become a problem not only for the government but also for the country except for few opportunist lawyers.

Recommend0

Aamir Farooq

Aug 05, 2012 05:06am

How much negative publicity did US get when Bill Clinton was tried in courts in Monica Lewinski case???